VED PAL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as Sanskrit Teacher under the Haryana State Education Department, retired on 30.4.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He was given re-employment on the same very post i.e. Sanskrit teacher from 1.5.2013 to 31.3.2014 vide order dated 18.4.2013. During the course of his reemployment, petitioner was served with a notice dated 24.1.2014 contemplating the recovery for having received salary in excess for the period from 1.5.2013 to 31.12.2013. At that stage, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 3231 of 2014) impugning the notice dated 24.1.2014. On 20.2.2014, the said petition was disposed of with the observations that in case the petitioner files a reply to the impugned notice, the Block Education Officer, Matlauda, District Panipat would consider the same and take a final decision thereupon within a period of one week. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.2.2014 to the notice dated 24.1.2014, and the same has been rejected vide order dated 7.3.2014, Annexure P6.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed impugning the order of rejection dated 7.3.2014, Annexure P6, and thereby fastening a recovery of Rs. 1,18,708/- towards excess salary drawn during the period of reemployment.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is a retiree and as such, no recovery could have been effected from him at this stage. It is further submitted that at the time of fixation of pay during the course of re-employment, there was no mis-representation or fraud attributed to the petitioner and as such even on such count, recovery in the light of impugned order cannot sustain. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Bansi Lal v. State of Punjab and others,2013 3 SCT 811.